Author
Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1 (Read 1019100 times)

Well, the frequency is only a little different but the drive power is also a lot different. So is the energy within the cavity a lot different.

If the energy is coupling with some unknown particle couldn't it be quite sensitive to the rate of change of wave amplitude (frequency and power) within the cavity? So what would the mass of the particle need to be in order for it couple with more strongly in one case than the other? Just throwing it out there.

Please help me with more info. I see the input power to be the same 17 watts (see attached table, first two rows). Where is the info that the drive power is a lot different?

Well, the frequency is only a little different but the drive power is also a lot different. So is the energy within the cavity a lot different.

If the energy is coupling with some unknown particle couldn't it be quite sensitive to the rate of change of wave amplitude (frequency and power) within the cavity? So what would the mass of the particle need to be in order for it couple with more strongly in one case than the other? Just throwing it out there.

Please help me with more info. I see the input power to be the same 17 watts (see attached table, first two rows). Where is the info that the drive power is a lot different?

O goodness me. I was thinking of TE012 without verifying it. In the two TM211 cases there is a difference in energy within the chamber, but not drive energy. I do think the TE012 case is interesting, too. That is the case where there is a big difference in the drive power and cavity energy with about 3% difference in frequency. The FOM is highest for TE012 too, over 3 times higher than the closest other case, and 6 times higher than the poorest FOM case. (FOM = thrust/drive power) So that mystery particle I alluded to couples even more strongly at the lower frequency of TE012 with much lower amplitude of the magnetic/electric fields of the RF wave.

Does that mean that the mystery particle is more massive than would be ideal for the frequencies tested?

If this really is Woodward's assumption. We can put it to bed. We just discussed this. I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.

Woodward's theory might work as described above if he pumped it with gamma rays and didn't blast the molecules apart in the process. The only other way is to relativistically accelerate the device, which would melt it down more than likely. If we could do that, we probably have neater stuff than emdrives.

If this really is Woodward's assumption We can put it to bed. We just discussed this.I find it hard to believe he has confused mass energy within the atom with energies of covalent bonds.

Ha they are talking about me over there?

Ron it looks like they are also talking about you.

I also see that birchoff and aceshigh are over there. Hi guys

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, let's keep the eyes on the ball. The important issue is that all the theories (including the report) concerning the cavity "Q" are falsified by the experiments. There is a lot of nonlinearity according to the data (0.3% change in frequency doubles the thrust). Also as @aero pointed out increasing input power by a factor of 6 (from 2.6 to 16.7 watts) ends up with practically the same thrust force.

The fact that there is a lot of nonlinearity means that scaling this thing up is a huge problem

Using Specific Force (Force/InputPower) is negated by the experimental data. Force/InputPower according to the data is not a linear parameter of the system.

Now with a very very scarce medium, the amount of mass/s that can be swallowed by the thruster is so weak that it takes very high ejection speeds to get a thrust level of any significance. When the scarcity of the medium implies relativistic ejection velocities to get interesting thrust, then the factneed [my edit?] to use a medium mass at all becomes irrelevant because you put more energy as kinetic energy than the energy equivalence of harvested mass : if you have that much onboard energy to spend on kinetic energy of the jet, then just creating the rest mass (from energy) of what you are ejecting becomes a negligible term. You are almost as good with a photon rocket and ignoring the medium.

Having had a propeller beanie as a kid, I hang on to that concept concept. Thanking you again, I continue:.

If it is to be a ramjet, then the intake has to be physically very large. You can't make it out of matter, you'd have to somehow project a field to harvest the DM as you move thru it, and maybe condense it. You'd have to start the ramjet going somehow (boom boom Orion?), and discard that stage when the ramjet starts working.

Anyhow, it would not be pushing on the quantum field, and it would have a tailpipe. I'm thinking you can't suck it up, you have to move thru it.

I'm trying to visualize what a useful spacecraft might look like. Which may be uncomfortably close to speculating about benign wormholes, but hey.

Lurker and former engineer here making first post. I'm intrigued by the theoretical outlays here, but wondering how many among us are potential DIY experimentalists? I believe that sufficient information is now accessible to the public to independently replicate and confirm this technology widely. I envision something along the lines of the DIY drone developers and their enthusiasm for advancing that field, with a rapid feedback loop and dispersion of information.

The architectural design, materials, and concepts are described in a fairly straight-forward manner in the patent publication. YBCO film is superconducting above liquid nitrogen boiling point. I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts. Of course, the requisite time and knowledge for carrying it out would need to be conducted, probably with no compensation. Who among us are willing and able? Is there a Steve Jobs of propellentless devices among these ranks? My thought is that to advance this tech quickly, technically capable and independent people, not beholden too much to dogma or larger institutions, are going to have to run with it and spread it as far and wide as possible.

I also see that birchoff and aceshigh are over there. Hi guys [/quote]

I thought that was pretty clear as i mentioned that it was on talk polywell that i talked to Paul March and told him about the discussion here. I mentioned a few times too that i was like message boy between here and talk polywell and next big future and i would not continue bringing messages from one forum to another.

An SF author, Mike Brotherton, beat you to it in 2008. His 'dark drive,' a sort of 'dark matter bussard ramjet,' was the drive for his starships in 'Spider Star.' Worth noting: before writing SF, he had a PHD in Astronomy, held a research position at 'Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' (whatever that is:) ) and Kitt Peak National Observatory. Seems to be a bit of an X-Ray expert. However, the description of his 'dark drive' was superficial.

Haha, i almost posted about Mike Brothertons drive from his other book Star Dragon, where they are able to form a singularity and split it in black and a white hole, and somehow (i forgot how) the ship moves along. (John Fornaro had mentioned something about black hole drives)

An SF author, Mike Brotherton, beat you to it in 2008. His 'dark drive,' a sort of 'dark matter bussard ramjet,' was the drive for his starships in 'Spider Star.' Worth noting: before writing SF, he had a PHD in Astronomy, held a research position at 'Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' (whatever that is:) ) and Kitt Peak National Observatory. Seems to be a bit of an X-Ray expert. However, the description of his 'dark drive' was superficial.

Haha, i almost posted about Mike Brothertons drive from his other book Star Dragon, where they are able to form a singularity and split it in black and a white hole, and somehow (i forgot how) the ship moves along. (John Fornaro had mentioned something about black hole drives)

Btw, dr Brotherton is an astro physicist.

its easy. with one end negative and the other positive mass or energy you get a situation where when normal forces push one of the ends of the drive that end moves in the opposite way that ordinary energy or matter mass would and moves towards the force if you can keep the ends apart the thing accelerates on it's own basically forever. that's one of the drives mentioned briefly in Woodward's video in the question and answer session at the end of the video.

Building on what I was going on about earlier concerning where mass energy and self energy lie. Given Woodward's assertions about exciting an oscillation in a dielectric and then pushing on it at an opportune time to move forward clearly does violate conservation of momentum. Tying that in with mass energy and self energy, it is clear that SPACIALLY, mass energy (constrained within spacetime) are a symmetric quantity with a conservation associated to it in the spirit of Noether. You can't violate it this way. But I have two crazy ideas to believe stemming from looking at the emdrive problem from the other end of the spectrum, the conservation of momentum, which it breaks if it works right? Let's see. First an observation. It seems clear that as we approach unification of all physical interactions, or singularity, those symmetries we depend on and their associated conservations begin to yield one at a time. At the end you're left in a situation where mass is not significant and everything is massless. That's my first observation. At x energy, conservation of momentum should break. Where? How is it related to the strong CP problem? Or perhaps that is too deep, how about just P symmetry. P symmetry is key.

Remember that mass is constrained over space and energy is constrained over time!Also remember that a polarized cap and a unpolarized cap DO FALL at exactly the same rate.Keep this in mind when wrapping your head around this stuff.Don't forget about the effect of 3d shapes and cavities on the casimir effect.You don't need to "blast" the cavity through space to be able to say that "It is accelerating" It already is accelerating right here on earth, but to small effect.Everything here is dependent on Rest Mass and Inertial Mass being different under ideal conditions.

Next observation and impossible thing to believe:Looking at casimir forces, mode exclusion and that whole mess again, I realized that I incorrectly assumed that ALL modes of ALL frequencies were being excluded within the enclosed bell of the emdrive, but that is way incorrect. Only energies allowed by the plasma frequency of the walls of the bell are excluded. Any wall penetrating particles and their infinite modes are NOT excluded by the boundary conditions. So that narrows the playing field of casimir energies to within a band X wide.

Lastly putting all this junk above together, I arrived at the conclusion, that the non symmetric shape of the bell of the emdrive in the length direction is the absolute key here, any chirality in the system is key in the direction of desired thrust, be it in the dielectric's molecules is key. So whatever frequency you're exciting the emdrive at, in this case mhz which is (we're assuming mostly an effect within the dielectric) there MUST be spacial asymmetry in the system's design, in order for it to work without violating conservation of momentum. This applies to any reactionless design. I bet if Woodward put his "symmetrically shaped in the direction of desired thrust" devices in a conical faraday cage, it probably would work.

There is a loose end here. The cannae. I asserted its pill box didn't matter based on the rf analysis in nasa paper and lack of "bell" shape. There is a bell shape but extremely flat where the tube meets the pillbox but it seems negligible. Maybe it is more asymmetric than I can see from the photos. I still haven't looked at the chirality of PTFE, that remains open.

The above logic applies to reactionless theories. Those ones relating to wimps and actually expelling particles out the back don't need such treatment. Only the ones where the plasma frequency of the photons inside the thing, keep the particles confined inside.

Also note how the Rindler horizon keeps moving closer to the particle/ship as it accelerates. Spacial asymmetry again, along the vector of motion. Just like SR. This works at all levels.

And finally, given the (probably flaw logic) above, they emdrive doesn't violate conservation of momentum. The particles inside have a momentum on a gradient.Another way to think of the inside of the emdrive cavity is to picture it as its own little universe with a slightly modified space manifold, such that there is an asymmetry in parity.And they really want to equalize, so the thing moves to compensate. Just like McCulloch said.Boom!Now I'm going to obsess over the charge component of CP symmetry.Phew.

Lurker and former engineer here making first post. I'm intrigued by the theoretical outlays here, but wondering how many among us are potential DIY experimentalists? I believe that sufficient information is now accessible to the public to independently replicate and confirm this technology widely. I envision something along the lines of the DIY drone developers and their enthusiasm for advancing that field, with a rapid feedback loop and dispersion of information.

The architectural design, materials, and concepts are described in a fairly straight-forward manner in the patent publication. YBCO film is superconducting above liquid nitrogen boiling point. I estimate that an experiment could be put together for less than $2000 of parts. Of course, the requisite time and knowledge for carrying it out would need to be conducted, probably with no compensation. Who among us are willing and able? Is there a Steve Jobs of propellentless devices among these ranks? My thought is that to advance this tech quickly, technically capable and independent people, not beholden too much to dogma or larger institutions, are going to have to run with it and spread it as far and wide as possible.

.../...Would be dark matter powered dark matter jet rocket. Call that a "dark matter ramjet". Unless anyone can point me to previous publication or grant, I hereby take precedence on that concept

An SF author, Mike Brotherton, beat you to it in 2008. His 'dark drive,' a sort of 'dark matter bussard ramjet,' was the drive for his starships in 'Spider Star.' Worth noting: before writing SF, he had a PHD in Astronomy, held a research position at 'Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' (whatever that is:) ) and Kitt Peak National Observatory. Seems to be a bit of an X-Ray expert. However, the description of his 'dark drive' was superficial.

Amazing, but not that surprising given the span of concepts in SF. Well then I must abandon claim on precedence. Even if superficial description, seeing that from someone with such background is indicative that it wasn't that far fetched... and also that it is in the air of the time (dans l'air du temps).